Madhya Pradesh High Court
Naveen Kumar vs Union Of India on 7 November, 2023
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 7 th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 4469 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
VINOD KUMAR NAHARKAR S/O SHANKAR LAL
N AH AR K AR R/O WARD NO. 5 CANT COLONY,
PACHMARHI, DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MOHARRAM ALI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE DEFENCE ESTATE STATE
NEW DELHI (DELHI)
2. THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR DEFENCE ESTATE
CENTRAL COMMAND LUCKNOW (UTTAR
PRADESH)
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CANTONMENT
BOARD PACHMARHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PUSHPENDRA YADAV - ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL ALONG
WITH SHRI DHARMENDRA KAURAB )
WRIT PETITION No. 4457 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
NIKHELESH SAMUNDRE S/O LAXMI PRADAD
SAM UN D R E R/O WARD NO. 1 GANDHI GARRAGE,
PACHMARHI, DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MOHARRAM ALI - ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 11/9/2023
7:03:03 PM
2
AND
1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY
MINISTRY DEFENCE DEFENCE ESTATE STATE
NEW DELHI (DELHI)
2. THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR DEFENSE ESTATE
CENTRAL COMMAND LUCKNOW (UTTAR
PRADESH)
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CANTONMENT
BOARD PACHMARHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PUSHPENDRA YADAV - ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL ALONG
WITH SHRI DHARMENDRA KAURAB )
WRIT PETITION No. 4460 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
PROMOD SRASAR S/O LATE MOTILAL OCCUPATION:
SAFAIWWALA PACHMAHI WARD NO.6, NEAR NANDAN
TOAL, DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MOHARRAM ALI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTATE STTE NEW DELHI
(DELHI)
2. THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR DEFENCE ESTATE
CENTRAL COMMAND LUCKNOW U.P. (UTTAR
PRADESH)
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CANTONMENT
BOARD PACHMARHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PUSHPENDRA YADAV - ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL ALONG
WITH SHRI DHARMENDRA KAURAB )
WRIT PETITION No. 4461 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 11/9/2023
7:03:03 PM
3
AMIT MOGRE S/O SHANJKAR LAL MOGRE
OCCUPATION: SAFAIWALA R/O WARD NO. 1 NEAR
SILPA HOTEL PACHMARHI DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MOHARRAM ALI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY
MONISTRY OF DEFENCE DEFENCE ESTATE STATE
NEW DELHI (DELHI)
2. THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR, DEFENCE ESTATE
CENTRAL COMMAND LUCKNOW (UTTAR
PRADESH)
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CANTONMENT
BOARD PACHMARHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PUSHPENDRA YADAV - ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL ALONG
WITH SHRI DHARMENDRA KAURAB )
WRIT PETITION No. 4463 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
CHANDRA KANT GHANGER S/O HARI SINGH GHANGER
R/O WARD NO. GANDHI, PACHMARHI, DISTRICT
HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MOHARRAM ALI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE DEFENCE ESTATE STATE
NEW DELHI (DELHI)
2. THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR DEFENCE ESTATE
CENTRAL COMMAND LUCKNOW (UTTAR
PRADESH)
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CANTONMENT
BOARD PACHMARHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 11/9/2023
7:03:03 PM
4
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PUSHPENDRA YADAV - ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL ALONG
WITH SHRI DHARMENDRA KAURAB )
WRIT PETITION No. 4466 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SATISH KUMAR BUSHAIL S/O LATE MOTILAL
OCCUPATION: SAFAIWALA WARD NO, 1 NEAR SIPLA
HOTEL PACHMARHI DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MOHARRAM ALI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE DEFENCE ESTATE STATE
NEW DELHI (DELHI)
2. THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR DEFENCE ESTATE
CENTRAL COMMAND LUCKNOW (UTTAR
PRADESH)
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CANTONMENT
BOARD PACHMARHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PUSHPENDRA YADAV - ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL ALONG
WITH SHRI DHARMENDRA KAURAB )
WRIT PETITION No. 4467 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
PRADEEP SARASAR S/O MOHAN LAL OCCUPATION:
SAFAIWAL R/O WARD NO. 10, NALANDA TOLA
PA C H M A R I DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MOHARRAM ALI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE DEFENCE ESTATE STATE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 11/9/2023
7:03:03 PM
5
NEW DELHI (DELHI)
2. THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR, DEFENCE ESTATE
CENTRAL COMMAND LUCKNOW (UTTAR
PRADESH)
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CANTONMENT
BOARD PACHMARHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PUSHPENDRA YADAV - ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL ALONG
WITH SHRI DHARMENDRA KAURAB )
WRIT PETITION No. 4468 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
VINAY KODHAWAR S/O PREMLAL KODHAWAR WARD
NO. 5 CANT COLONY PACHMARHI DISTRICT
HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MOHARRAM ALI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE DEFENCE ESTATE STATE
NEW DELHI (DELHI)
2. THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR DEFENSE ESTATE
CENTRAL COMMAND LUCKNOW (UTTAR
PRADESH)
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CANTONMENT
BOARD PACHMARHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PUSHPENDRA YADAV - ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL ALONG
WITH SHRI DHARMENDRA KAURAB )
WRIT PETITION No. 4489 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
NAVEEN KUMAR S/O HARISH KUMAR WARD NO. 1
GANDHI GRAM PACHMARHI DISTRICT
HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 11/9/2023
7:03:03 PM
6
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MOHARRAM ALI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE DEFENCE ESTATE STATE
NEW DELHI (DELHI)
2. THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR DEFENCE ESTATE
CENTRAL COMMAND LUCKNOW U.P. (UTTAR
PRADESH)
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CANTONMENT
BOARD PACHMARHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PUSHPENDRA YADAV - ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL ALONG
WITH SHRI DHARMENDRA KAURAB )
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This order shall govern the disposal of all the aforesaid writ petitions.
The facts of all the writ petitions, being similar, therefore, are being noticed
from W.P. No. 4469 of 2023 for the sake of brevity
2. The counsel for the petitioner contends that in the present case the
petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the
petitioner on the admissible pay scale and further prayer is made as regards stay
of process of selection against the post of Safai Wala. It is contended that the
present petitioner is working as Safai Wala on daily wage basis under the
control of Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Pachmarhi for more
than 20 years. The respondents instead of regularising the petitioner, have
invited application for recruitment against the post of Safai Wala. It is further
contended that the representation submitted by the petitioner has also not been
considered by the respondents. It is contended that few similarly situated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 11/9/2023
7:03:03 PM
employees had filed a petition before this Court vide W.P. No. 4537 of 2023
(Niklesh Kumar Samundre Vs. The Union of India & others), which was
dismissed by this Court vide order dated 4.7.2023 but the submission as
regards the petitioners' right of regularization in the light of the judgment of the
Apex Court in Sheo Narain Nagar and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and others - AIR 2018 SC 233 and Narendra Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of
Jharkhand - AIR 2018 SC 3589 and by Division Bench of this Court in
Noor Ali Vs. The State of M.P. - 2021 (II) MPWN 75 could not be taken
recourse to when the aforesaid writ petition was heard by the coordinate Bench
of this Court. It is further contended by the counsel that the coordinate Bench
while referring the decision of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of
Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi - (2006) 4 SCC 1 and also in State of M.P. Vs.
Lalit Kumar Verma - 2007 (1) SCC 575 has dismissed the petition on the
ground that initial induction of the petitioner in service was illegal, therefore, the
petitioner therein had no right of regularization. It is contended that since the
petitioner is not a back-door entry, the claim of the petitioner cannot be
declined in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Uma Devi (supra). It is
also contended that the Apex Court in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar
(supra) has even taken into consideration the aspect that the judgment of the
Apex Court in Uma Devi (supra) is being used as a tool for not regularising
the servies of the incumbents and their rightful claim are not being entertained.
Thus, it is submitted that in the present petition, the petitioner is entitled for
regularization.
3. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents submits that the petition
filed by the identically situated employees has already been dealt with by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 11/9/2023
7:03:03 PM
coordinate Bench and the coordinate Bench has dismissed the petition while
observing that there exist a distinction between the irregular and illegal
appointment and accordingly while appreciating the failure on the part of the
petitioner therein to explain their original induction in service, has declined to
entertain the petition. Thus, the present petitions, which are squarely identical,
are liable to be dismissed.
4. Having consider the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it
is undisputed that the other similarly situated employees have also filed a
petition before this Court vide W.P. No. 4537 of 2023 ( Niklesh Kumar
Samundre & others Vs. Union of India and others). The coordinate Bench of
this Court has dismissed the said writ petition vide order dated 4.7.2023
observing that as the petitioners have failed to plead specifically in the writ
petition that they were originally appointed by taking recourse to due process of
law, thus no direction for regularization of services of the petitioner can be
given. The coordinate Bench of this Court in Para 8 and 9 of the order passed
in Niklesh Kumar Samundre (supra) has held as under:-
"8. Thus, in order to seek regularization the petitioners are
required to prima facie establish that their initial appointment was
not illegal but it was irregular. Any appointment done in violation
of the constitutional Scheme as enshrined under Article 14 and 16
of the Constitution of India or any appointment of an employee not
holding the minimum qualification to hold a particular post
would be termed as illegal appointment. The petition is
completely silent as to whether any advertisement was issued
prior to induction of the petitioners as daily wager Safaiwala
Karmchari. So far as the concept of one time measure in respect of
employees who are working for more than 10 years is concerned,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 11/9/2023
7:03:03 PM
the said concept is confined to irregular appointment only and not
to illegal appointment.
9. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the
considered opinion that in absence of basic averment in the writ
petition, no direction can be given to the authorities to consider
the claim of the petitioners. Furthermore, if the respondents are
proceeding further for appointment of Safaiwala on regular basis
then the same cannot be stopped merely on the ground that the
representation made by the petitioners for their regularization is
pending. Even otherwise this Court has already held that there is
no averment in the writ petition to show that the appointment
of the petitioners was not illegal."
5. In view of the order passed by this Court in Niklesh Kumar Samundre
(supra), the present petitions are also liable to be dismissed.
6. The reliance placed by the petitioners in the decisions of Sheo Narain
Nagar (supra) and Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra) and Noor Ali (supra)
are of no assistance to the petitioners in absence of specific pleading in the
memorandum of petition regarding original induction of the petitioners in
services.
7. Accordingly, the writ petitions, being devoid of merit, stand
dismissed. No costs.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
PB
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 11/9/2023
7:03:03 PM
